Hello, and thanks for the prompt reply, Eldon.
Eldon Romney wrote:
>
> Hey Al,
>
> After all this time, I thought perhaps I'd never hear back from you!
I was rather waiting to hear from you. Or, rather, since you had been
given the facts on the WIPO case, and the facts were clear, I was
waiting for some action on your part.
> Yes, I did put this on the back burner, awaiting
information from you and
> others.
First, I would recommend that matters of some urgency not be put on the
back burner, not only because justice deferred is justice denied, but
also because, based on some of what you've written below, you have
forgotten (or would like me to think you've forgotten) much of what you
had already learned.
Second, what information were you awaiting from me? I thought I had
supplied all of the necessary and sufficient information clearly going
through the steps of why the WIPO action was a clear violation of
Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution. And ALL of the WIPO e-mails are
accessible at
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/emails/unthreaded2.htm, second
section.
Any other information you feel you need from me regarding the WIPO
action -- just name it and I'll get it to you immediately, although I
can't think of anything else that I have not already provided.
Third, what information from "others" are you awaiting? I would like
you to notify these "others" that they are extremely delinquent in
providing whatever information you require, and if they do not provide
this information in an extremely timely fashion, you should proceed
without it.
(I should note that I have some (presumably) reliable testimony
available that there was the possibility that some documents in what was
termed the "Heigl file" were in danger of being excised or tampered
with, or at least that one or more people in a leadership position were
concerned that this might happen. So there may also be a case of
Local-Group high-level attempts at a cover-up, including a board meeting
whose minutes were never published, referenced below.)
>
> One question first: What was the term of your appointment as webmaster?
Now you're switching the topic to the original dispute.
The original term of my appointment as Webmaster was open-ended, I
guess, much as most other appointments are.
My original appointment was made on April 28, 1998.
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/board_meetings.htm#bm980428
There was a re-appointment on April 4, 2000.
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/board_meetings.htm#bm000404
There was also a re-appointment (by inference) on June 4, 2002
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/board_meetings.htm#bm020604
> Normally appointees are appointed for no longer
than the present term of the
> officer who appoints. Local Mensa officers' terms expire every couple of
> years, and unless you've recently been re-appointed as Webmaster, I don't
> understand how you've retained your office.
That's because you've completely forgotten the crux of this matter (or
would like me to believe you've forgotten). I've got it in writing.
Following that last re-appointment (as linked above), on July 17, 2002,
there was a board meeting, apparently held in secret, as the minutes
(and names of attendees) have never been published -- you should request
a copy of the minutes of that meeting, and I would like a copy, too.
Subsequently, at a July 20, 2002 board meeting, 2003 AG Chair and
board member Judy Hogan asserted her "shoot the messenger" attitude and
personal problems over my identifying massive ineptitude with the
ag2003.com website by inducing the board to cancel my appointment as
Webmaster.
However, on August 10, 2002, Minnesota Mensa and I negotiated and signed
a written settlement agreement reinstating me as Webmaster.
In other words, on 8/10/02, I became a contracted Webmaster, not an
appointed one.
(Not unlike a contracted caterer, or a contracted printer, etc.)
That's how I've retained my office -- I have it in writing.
There is no expiration date in that signed written agreement. That was
deliberate -- if I had simply been re-appointed (with or without a
signed written agreement), or if there had been an expiration date for
my contracted services, Judy Hogan (with her supportive in-crowd
cronies) could have simply re-vented her spleen at the next available
opportunity and started the whole thing all over again.
I signed a written settlement agreement with Minnesota Mensa contracting
my services as Minnesota Mensa Webmaster. Despite the board's failure
to fully comply with #5 of that agreement, I have scrupulously kept my
side of the contract, and I shall continue to do so until either I
negotiate and sign a superseding written agreement, or I die. My word
is my bond, and my signature on a document is even moreso.
>
> As to your claim that "American Mensa's bringing of WIPO Case No.
D2005-0068
> was a clear violation of Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution.",
American
> Mensa deals with WIPO actions the same way it would legal matters; it goes
> to the authority who has jurisdiction.
(Now we're back to talking about the WIPO debacle.)
Of course. But only at the point where Article IIID permits it, and not
before. And until "all avenues of settlement and redress within the
Society" have been exhausted, there is no (outside) "authority who has
jurisdiction."
> It would be the same in a case where
> a law had been broken at a Mensa event: Mensa (or Mensans) would go
through
> the legal system, by first calling police, maybe consulting lawyers, etc.
No, it would not be the same at all, and you know it.
Eldon, you already tried this specious cop-out argument on me way back
on April 14, 2005. It didn't fly with me then, it doesn't fly with me
now, and it isn't going to fly with any of the Mensa higher-ups who look
at this case and wonder why you're trying so hard to excuse clear and
blatant rule-breaking by those in leadership positions.
I've already replied to this hooey on April 20, 2005. Browse to
http://www.millcityrecords.com/mndensa/emails/amlo06.htm#exactly1 and
scroll up just a bit to see the start of your specious assertion to
which I replied.
A criminal act is not a dispute. A fire is not a dispute. Article IIID
deals with Mensa disputes. If Mensa were to follow your above
assertion, IIID would be meaningless, as it wouldn't apply to anything.
I don't think that notion would fly with those who considered and
drafted that Article, nor those who ratified it.
Article IIID is quite clear -- here it is again, Eldon:
THE CONSTITUTION OF MENSA
[International Constitution of Mensa adopted April 1982.
Includes Amendments adopted 1982, 1985. Reprinted October 1992.]
III. MEMBERSHIP
D. DISPUTES WITHIN MENSA
Members having a dispute with Mensa, with any national Mensa or
subdivision thereof, or with another member arising out of Mensa-related
activities shall exhaust all avenues of settlement and redress within
the Society before taking the dispute to external authorities. Failure
to do so may be considered an act inimical to Mensa.
"Members having a dispute ..." -- that's the handful of the in-crowd
clique
members who also happened to have been elected to leadership positions
within
Minnesota Mensa, PLUS probably Pam Donahoo (if she is also a member),
and others. "... with another member ..." -- that's me, the Minnesota
Mensa Webmaster.
"... shall exhaust all avenues of settlement and redress within the
Society ..." THEY DIDN'T and THEY STILL HAVEN'T.
I seem to be accumulating a growing list of positioned people within
Mensa who have abrogated their roles as "avenues of settlement and
redress" -- some of the board members themselves, Eric Adams, Cyndi
Kuyper, Pam Donahoo -- and I certainly hope you will not choose to add
your own name to that list.
I realize that what seems to be the easiest way out is simply to assume
and advocate that Minnesota Mensa board members couldn't possibly have
violated Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution *because* they are board
members, and that Pam Donahoo couldn't have violated Article IIID of the
Mensa Constitution *because* she is the Executive Director.
But it happened, and IIID *was* violated -- blatantly, at a significant
financial cost to Mensa, and to no good purpose, as the ill-advised WIPO
action merely confused the current and potential members of Minnesota
Mensa by resulting in the parking of our former domain name while I
merely moved our website to a new domain name.
(What's politically correct here? Calling the WIPO action "un-Mensan"
or
being more realistic and using the word "stupid" instead?)
At any rate, Eldon, you happen to be the person who's up to the plate at
this juncture, with the choice of being perceived as part of the
eventual solution or part of the ongoing problem. Because a full
narration of this will eventually wind up at Mensa International, along
with several stops on the way up.
Scroll up, and re-read Article IIID. Here's the summary, again:
Proposed Findings of Fact:
1. There was (and still is) an ongoing dispute. Originally it began
between Judy Hogan, as AG2003 Chair, and Al Heigl, as Webmaster, over
the incompetent webwork done by Jason Schmitz for AG2003.
2. This dispute arose out of Mensa-related activities -- the Minnesota
Mensa website.
3. All avenues of settlement and redress within Mensa were not
exhausted at the time of the WIPO filing.
4. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an "external
authority" and is not a part of Mensa in any way.
5. Among several things detrimental to Mensa, significant Mensa funds
were wasted, and current and prospective members of Minnesota Mensa were
frustrated in being forced to find the new address (mn-mensa.org) of
Minnesota Mensa's website.
Proposed Conclusions of Law:
American Mensa's bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 was a clear
violation of Article IIID of the Mensa Constitution.
Furthermore, American Mensa's bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068
qualifies as an act inimical to Mensa.
Proposed Order:
American Mensa should therefore take the following actions:
1. Identify all persons who were personally contributory to the WIPO
action being filed, and initiate appropriate disciplinary action.
2. Notify the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that AML's
bringing of WIPO Case No. D2005-0068 was in violation of Mensa's
Constitution, and, therefore, American Mensa formally withdraws the
complaint and requests that the WIPO decision be nullified, and the
domain name minnesotamensa.org be restored to its original owner as
registered prior to the D2005-0068 action.
3. American Mensa should immediately re-direct the parked domain name
minnesotamensa.org to point to the Internet address pointed to by
mn-mensa.org, while commencing the transfer of the domain name
minnesotamensa.org to its original owner.
Think Enron. Think WorldCom. Think that sometimes, people "at the top"
screw up big-time, and commit wrongdoing.
There's nothing wrong with your passing this WIPO complaint up to the
next level, and saying, "There appears to be a flagrant violation of
Article IIID here, and some official recognition and redress of this is
needed."
At the least, you come out smelling like a rose, as the facts clearly
back up such a course of action on your part.
(Note: I have just read a letter from Dave Remine informing me that some
of the harassment against me is being investigated by the Mensa National
Hearings Committee as a result of a filing by the Mensa Advocate, Guy
Conti, of charges of acts inimical against me. So you will apparently
be riding *with* the flow by championing my position.)
Sincerely,
Al Heigl
Webmaster,
Minnesota Mensa
--
Alan Heigl
Mill City Records
P.O. Box 177
Northfield Minnesota 55057-0177
507-663-6090
(Professional Proofreading,
Web Site Work using FrontPage/Expression)
http://www.millcityrecords.com/webwork/
|